Choudhray was authorised as a sole trader, trading as Adams Financial Services, on 31 October 2004 to conduct regulated home finance and from 14 January 2005 to conduct insurance mediation business. She ceased to be authorised on 8 July 2009.
The FSA concluded that Choudhary is not a fit and proper person to perform any functions as her conduct demonstrates a lack of honesty and integrity.
On 22 February 2010 Choudhary was convicted of thirteen counts of financial crime offences: nine counts of obtaining a money transfer by deception; one count of attempting to dishonestly obtain a money transfer by deception; and three counts of fraud. The offences of obtaining money transfers by deception and fraud involved the completion and submission of numerous false mortgage applications to various lenders.
She was sentenced, on 7 June 2010, to a total of three years imprisonment.
Choudhary’s FSA ban was originally postponed because she disputed the amount of mortgage fraud it said she had carried out in its Warning Notice dated 10 March 2011. However the FSA has found there is no basis not to give this ‘decision notice’ and proceeded to make the prohibition order against her.
The FSA said that, having regard to its regulatory objectives which include the protection of consumers, maintaining market confidence and the reduction of financial crime, it concluded:
• Choudhary had acted dishonestly and without integrity by dishonestly making false representations to obtain money transfers by deception whilst authorised by the FSA;
• she abused her position as an FSA authorised mortgage adviser to facilitate the completion and submission of numerous false mortgage applications to various lenders;
• she has been convicted of serious financial crime offences;
• the convictions, and the conduct which gave rise to them, demonstrate that she is not a fit and proper person to perform any function in relation to any regulated activity carried on by any authorised person, exempt person or exempt professional firm;
• she presents a risk to consumers, to the financial system, as well as to the FSA’s statutory objective of the reduction of financial crime, as she has failed to demonstrate that she conducted her business in compliance with proper standards; and
• the severity of the risk that she poses to consumers and to confidence in the market generally is such that it is necessary in order to achieve its regulatory objectives for the FSA to make a prohibition order against her.
